I. The Martini: Wet, Dry, and Churchill
A martini is a cocktail of vermouth and gin. (Less traditional drinkers — call them "the modern orthodox" — substitute vodka for gin.) Most vermouths, and those used in martinis, are fortified white wines with added ingredients such as spices, bark, and botanicals. Ratios of vermouth to gin vary. A wet martini has more vermouth than gin. But most martinis tend to be dry, with more gin than vermouth. Among his many other accomplishments, Churchill disliked unnecessarily complicated drinks, and so dispensed with vermouth entirely: he drank straight gin with a bow toward France. Indeed, the Churchill martini would not qualify for Friday night kiddush, but the other types of martinis, which include wine in different ratios, are better contenders.
II. Vermouth (Probably) Doesn't Qualify as Wine for Kiddush
The Torah obligation to recite kiddush is to commemorate the Shabbos in the context of tefilla, whereas the obligation to recite kiddush over wine on Friday night [1] is only rabbinic.[2]
Wine used to make kiddush must be fit to be brought on the mizbe'ach for nisuch ha'yayiin because kiddush on Shabbos is, in principle, part of the tefilla and thus resembles a korban. Therefore, even when the Rabbis instituted kiddush on wine, it retained an element of ha-kravas korban (Bava Basra, 77). However, the Rishonim debate how literally to take this comparison. At the very least, the threshold obligation is that the wine must warrant a ha-gefen.
A. Rashbam's View: Wine Whose Bracha is Hagafen is Fit for Kiddush
Rashbam takes the comparison between kiddush wine and nisuch wine somewhat loosely. For instance, the Rashbam maintains that wine diluted with water is unacceptable for nisuch, but preferable for kiddush.[3]
Instead, the comparison only precludes wine that has soured or turned vinegary. Any wine subject to ha-gafen and has not soured will be acceptable. Therefore, according to the Rashbam, quality vermouth would presumably be acceptable for kiddush, because the beracha on vermouth is ha-gafen.[4]
B. Rebbeinu Tam's View: Wine Which Retains its Flavor is Fit for Kiddush.
According to Rebbeinu Tam[5] wine diluted with so much water that the wine flavor is diminished rather than enhanced is unfit for kiddush. Vermouth is not diluted but has additional non-wine ingredients. Presumably, the wine flavor of vermouth is less discernable than wine with too much water. However, whether Rabbeinu Tam would consider vermouth acceptable for kiddush depends on why he thinks overly diluted wine is unfit. One possibility is that kiddush requires the full taste and flavor of wine, so too much water will render the wine unfit by diminishing the taste.[6]
Another possibility is that kiddush requires a wine with an enjoyable wine flavor, so too much water will degrade the flavor such that it is not sufficiently enjoyable for the celebration of kiddush.[7]
According to this possibility, vermouth is certainly unfit for kiddush because the taste of the wine is altered by the taste of the spices and botanicals. According to the second possibility, there is room to suggest that the spices and botanicals do not degrade the flavor of wine, but rather add additional flavors to enhance the wine, which would render it fit for kiddush.
C. Rambam: Wine Which Has a Pure Flavor is Fit for Kiddush.
Rambam maintains that there is a single set of standards which apply to (a) kiddush wine; (b) nisuch wine; and (c) yayin nesech and stam yaynum. This is because the halacha of nisuch hayayiin served as the model for the halachos of kiddush, yayin nesech, and stam yaynum. Thus, whatever wine qualifies for nisuch likewise qualifies for kiddush and is liable to become yayin nesech or stam yaynum. The following discussion emerges from the Rambam's views on these three areas of halacha.[8]
There is a prohibition of sacrificing any yeast or honey on the mizbeach. Thus, adding any yeast or honey to wine would render it unfit for kiddush. Rambam expands this principle and maintains that adding anything to wine because of the principle of temimus: wine for nisuch cannot incorporate any non-wine flavors, just as animals for korbanos cannot incorporate any features of different species, e.g., a sheep which appears goatish is unfit for a korban.[9]
Thus any additive which introduces a distinct flavor renders the wine unfit for nisuch and, therefore, kiddush. Rambam would thus preclude vermouth (and certainly a martini) from being used for kiddush.
III. Side Bar: White Wine and Yayin Mevushal
Typically, vermouth is a white wine and, when kosher, is often mevushal. According to Ramban (Bava Basra 77b, s.v. chamar), white wine is not acceptable for kiddush, even b'dieved. However, the accepted opinion is to permit white wine for kiddush.[10]
Moreover, Ramban appears to preclude defective wine which either turns white or is too pale due to some problem in the fermentation process. If this is indeed what Ramban meant, vermouth would not be precluded on this basis.
The full topic of mevushal is too lengthy to discuss here. I hope to address it in a subsequent article.
IV. The Beracha for a Martini is She-hakol, Disqualifying it For Kiddush
Assuming, for the sake of argument, vermouth itself would be permissible to use for kiddush, the remaining issue is whether a cocktail of vermouth and gin would be permissible. This will now depend on whether the beracha for a martini is ha-gefen or she-ha-kol.[11]
The beracha for a drink with multiple ingredients is determined by the main ingredient, the ikkar. Thus, if the ikkar of a martini is vermouth, the beracha would be ha-gefen. If the ikkar of a martini is gin, the beracha would be she-ha-kol.
There are two approaches to determine the ikkar. One approach is to apply the standard principles of hilchos ta'aruvos, such that whichever ingredient is greatest in proportion will have the status of ikkar.[12]
Most martinis have more gin than vermouth, so would not qualify for kiddush on this basis. Wet martinis, which have more vermouth than gin, would warrant a ha-gefen according to this view, and would be acceptable for kiddush according to the Rashbam's position.
However, this approach to hilchos berachos has two flaws. First, the principles of hilchos ta'aruvos are generally used for issur v'heter; it is not self-evident that these principles apply universally in halacha nor in the instance of hilchos berachos. Second, hilchos berachos is especially sensitive to the flavor of the food. For instance, wine which is made by steeping pomace in water maybe unfit for nisuch but nonetheless warrant a ha-gefen.[13]
The accepted opinion of the Beiur Halacha is that the beracha on a food with multiple ingredients will be determined by the dominant flavor.[14]
Martinis — even wet martinis — are gin cocktails. The vermouth accompanies and modifies the flavor of the gin, not vice versa. Therefore, according to this view, the beracha would not be ha-gefen and a martini would not be acceptable for kiddush.
V. Conclusion
Because the Rambam would disallow vermouth for kiddush and Rebbeinu Tam might, it would be unwise to rely on the Rashbam's view, which would permit vermouth for kiddush. If vermouth is disqualified for kiddush, a martini certainly is too. Yet, even according to the Rashbam, a martini should not be used for kiddush because the beracha is not a ha-gefen, disqualifying it for kiddush.
Bottom line: A martini cannot be used for kiddush because it doesn’t qualify as wine.
[1] This article discusses the obligation to make kiddush on Friday night. According to Rosh (Pesachim 10:17) different halachos apply to the obligation to make kiddush on Shabbos day because the kiddush on Friday night fulfills a Biblical commandment, whereas the kiddush on Shabbos day does not. Following Rosh, Mishnah Brurah holds a chemar medina (a socially significant alcoholic beverage; see Iggros Moshe, Orach Chayyim, 2:75) is perfectly fine for kiddush on Shabbos day, if one prefers it to wine. It would seem then that according to the Rosh a martini would qualify for kiddush on Shabbos day. While the practice of using chemar medina is widespread, it is worth noting that Rambam (Shabbos, 29:17) does not distinguish between kiddush of Friday night and kiddush of Shabbos day. Presumably, the dispute between Rambam and Rosh turns on whether one can fulfill the Biblical obligation of zachor es yom ha-Shabbos multiple times during a single Shabbos. Rosh holds that once the obligation is fulfilled once, there is no longer a way to fulfill it again. Rambam, however, holds that while the obligation of zachor is discharged after the first kiddush on Friday night, the kiddush on Shabbos day is still a kiyum mitzvah min ha-Torah and, therefore, the same halachos govern each kiddush. See also n. 11, below.↩
[2] See the Netziv's Emek Shi'ayla, Yisro, 54:1 for an extensive discussion on this topic in which he finds Ramban (Milchamos Ha-Shem, Shevu'os, ch. 3) and Ran (Shabbos, ch. 2) to hold kiddush over wine to be a Biblical obligation and kiddush during tefilla to be Rabbinic. The Netziv appears to understand the nature of the obligation to daven on Shabbos to be a dispute between Ramban and Rashi. In Ramban's view, there is no Biblical obligation to pray daily; however, there is an obligation to recite kiddush in the context of prayer, which would require a tefilla to fulfill the commandment. In Rashi's view, however, while there is generally no Biblical obligation of daily prayer, the Torah requires prayer on Shabbos and Yom Tov for the purposes of kiddush. It is possible to suggest that this dispute cashes out when one accidentally davens the weekday tefilla and then heard kiddush over wine in shul. In Ramban's view, there is no independent obligation to daven: the tefilla is merely a vehicle for the obligation of kiddush, which was fulfilled by hearing kiddush over the wine. Therefore, one would not need to repeat the tefilla. However, in Rashi's view, the obligation to daven tefillas Shabbos exists as an independent obligation of mikra'as kodesh, and so one would need to repeat the tefilla despite having previously fulfilled the obligation of kiddush over wine in shul. Indeed, the Netziv, following Rabbeinu Yona (Rosh, Arvei Pesachim) and R. Akiva Eiger (Orach Chayyim, 271), holds the reason we recite kiddush in shul is for those people who cannot properly daven and did not fulfill their obligation to commemorate the Shabbos. Contrary to popular practice, kiddush on Friday night has a lesser requirement of kiddush b'makom seuda precisely because it has the stand-alone value of fulfilling the obligation to commemorate the Shabbos. (See Iggros Moshe, Orach Chayim, v_._ IV, no. 63). Indeed, the seuda on Friday night is mean to enhance the kiddush, which is the primary obligation. Therefore, even someone who does not know how to properly daven and is not eating in the shul will fulfill his obligation. But kiddush on Shabbos day is a function of oneg Shabbos and is meant to enhance the seuda, and one will not fulfill the obligation of kiddush on Shabbos day unless it is made in the context of the sedua.↩
[3] יש לדייק כן בד"ה מזוג ובד"ה עלויי עלייה שמשמע דס"ל שעלויי עלייה לקידוש דוקא ולא לניסוך.↩
[4]Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayyim, 204:1.↩
[8]הל' שבת פכ"ט, הל' מאכ"א פי"א-י"ג, הל' איסורי מזבח פ"ה↩
[9]Hil. Issurei Mizbeach, 3:5 and 6:1, 10.↩
[10]Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayyim, 272:4.↩
[11] According to some poskim (such as Rav Chayyim Volozhener and Rav Hershel Schachter) it is possible that the beracha would actually be mezonos because a martini may not qualify as a mashkeh. Their view is that the mark of a mashkeh is not a liquid, but a beverage which is typically used to quench thirst.↩
[12] See generally Rambam, Machalos Assuros, chs. 14-16 and the commentaries to Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayyim, 202 and 204.↩